CIT OK's ITA Reliance on Chinese Informant Info that China Tissue Paper Company Lied in AD Review
The Court of International Trade affirmed the International Trade Administration’s reliance on information submitted by a Chinese informant demonstrating that Chinese paper company Max Fortune submitted false information in the 2008-09 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on tissue paper products from China (A-570-894). As a result of Max Fortune’s alleged deception, the ITA imposed an adverse facts available rate of 112.64% in the proceeding, which CIT also affirmed.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Chinese Informant said Max Fortune Lied About Some Transactions
During the proceeding, the petitioner (Seaman Paper of Massachusetts) alleged that Max Fortune lied to the ITA about its use of third-party suppliers, and submitted documents supporting the allegations that Max Fortune did not report multiple affiliates and unaffiliated suppliers of raw materials and converting services involved in its production of the subject merchandise exported to the U.S. The documentation was obtained from a Chinese market researcher. The ITA went to China to verify both Max Fortune’s records and the informant’s records, and found the informant’s records to be more complete and corroborated by company records. The ITA therefore assigned Max Fortune an AFA rate for its failure to cooperate in the review.
Max Fortune Wanted to Confront Accuser, but CIT said no such Right Existed
Max Fortune said, among other things, that the confidentiality of the informant’s identity, as well as the confidential treatment of the evidence, denied it “the opportunity to confront its accuser…or to inspect any of the evidence” presented by the informant. CIT said this is a civil, not criminal case, “notwithstanding the noir-style fashioning of the facts and arguments by the parties,” and said Max Fortune cited to no statutory or regulatory authority to support its proposition that it had the right to confront its accuser.
Furthermore, said CIT, although Max Fortune was denied access to the confidential evidence, its counsel did have access, and Max Fortune was in any case provided with sufficient public information to have notice of, and to respond to, the allegations made against it. CIT said it would not require the ITA to depart from its past practice of allowing only counsel, as opposed to the company, access to confidential information.
CIT said Max Fortune Received Fair Treatment, Affirmed Final Results
Accordingly, said CIT, Max Fortune’s contention that it did not receive a fair proceeding is unsupported. CIT affirmed the ITA’s final results of the review.
(Slip Op. 12-87, dated 06/18/12, Judge Carman)